Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Ocean View, Delaware

Ocean View, DE Car Consumer Discussions

Re: More to think about: [vcheng]

by vcheng on Mon Dec 21 09:48:30 PST 2009

How many reasons do we need to think about? Well, let's start with this list of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: from: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138/?? Reasons 51 to 75: 51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required. 52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates” 53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans. 54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot 55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting. 57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.” 58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. 59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines. 60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years. 62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. 63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural. 64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn. 65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive. 66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. 68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events. 69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly. 70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.” 71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure. 72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead. 74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions. 75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay

Re: Is this Science? [vcheng]

by vcheng on Mon Dec 21 06:55:26 PST 2009

contd: In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English: “I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t take out all of it, because then we would have no explanation for the land warming, which would raise suspicions. But even with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a convincing explanation for why the ocean warmed during this period.” Why the blip, indeed. By the way, the Climategate deniers who dissed the e-mails as “ten years old” should note that the date on this one is 27 September 2009. Trick No. 4: You Cherry Pick the Model to “Prove” Global Warming is Real. This 14 October 2009 e-mail from insider Tom Wigley to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann speaks for itself: “The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as thought they match observations--but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity--compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the UN climate panel].” The response, from Schmidt himself, makes it clear that he was working backward from the recent cooling trend to salvage the Global Warming models. “The kinds of things we are hearing, “no model showed a cooling”, the “data is outside the range of the models,” need to be addressed directly,” Schmidt explained. His “very deceptive” figure was an effort to make the real world data showing static or cooling temperatures appear not to contradict the model predicting Global Warming. You get the idea. You won’t hear them talk like this in public, of course, where they close ranks in defense of their increasingly discredited theory. Trick No. 5: You Spend a Lot of time Promoting Your Views with the Media--and Publicly Attacking Your Skeptics. When the BBC finally--after a decade of no global warming--began to tentatively question whether temperatures were rising after all, the Global Warmers circulated frantic e-mails entitled the “BBC U-turn on climate.” The reaction of Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann was to go after the reporter: xtremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office (British Meteorological Office). . . . it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here? (Michael Mann to Phil Jones, Tom Wigley and others, 13 October 2009) Trick No. 5: “The Science is Settled. The Science is Settled.” Realizing that their models are open to question, the Global Warmers have tried frantically to shut off debate by chanting in unison: “The science is settled. The science is settled.” Critics are mocked and derided. When one scientist suggested that skeptics like Fred Singer and Lord Christopher Monckton be taken seriously, “Hockey Stick” Mann exploded: “I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans.” What set him off was Lord Monckton’s comment, forwarded in an e-mail, that the UN climate reports were unreliable: I understand that the IPCC's [the UN climate panel’s] 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero." In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus". Contrary to what you may have heard, the science of “man-made Global Warming” was never settled. Now that these e-mails have exposed the duplicity of that theory’s chief backers, perhaps we can begin trying to understand what, if anything, is really happening with the earth’s climate. For, as Kevin Trenberth admitted to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann on 14 October 2009: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” The e-mails do prove one thing, however. They make abundantly clear that much of what was presented as objective “scientific research” by the Global Warmers was nothing more than cleverly disguised advocacy for the radical environmentalist, radical anti-people belief that man is slowly destroying his planet. At the end of the day, it may turn out that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hysteria and hot air that has been generated by theory’s heated backers. That is certainly anthropogenic. Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.

Re: Well so... [imidazol97]

by 210delray on Mon Dec 07 18:44:30 PST 2009

I don't have a solid rebuttal for this one, but what I can say is that NHTSA has limited manpower and resources, so they can't examine every complaint in depth. Otherwise, they'd never see the forest because of the trees. This sudden acceleration bugaboo has been around for at least 25 years in just about all makes and models of cars with automatic trannies, so they have to prioritize the caseload in some manner. It's interesting though how the accounts change of specific incidents: SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA – On February 5, 2007, Bulent and Anne Ezal were headed to lunch at the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach, California. The restaurant is nestled on the edge of a cliff, affording dramatic views of the Pacific Ocean below. The parking lot was downhill of the restaurant, so Ezal rode the brakes of his 2005 Camry as he approached a parking space. He was at a complete stop, when the Camry suddenly accelerated, jumping a small curb, crashing through a fence and over the bluff. The vehicle fell 70 feet to the rocks below, and turned over once, coming to rest in the surf. Anne Ezal died of her injuries in the crash. Bulent Ezal later recovered. Seven months later, Jean Bookout and her friend Barbara Schwarz were exiting Interstate Highway 69 in Oklahoma – also in a 2005 Camry. As she sped down the ramp, Bookout, the driver, realized that she could not stop her car. She pulled the parking brake, leaving a 100-foot skid mark from right rear tire, and a 50-foot skid mark from the left. The Camry, however, continued speeding down the ramp, across the road at the bottom, and finally came to rest with its nose in an embankment. Schwarz died of her injuries; Bookout spent two months recovering from head and back injuries. So the LA Times and Safety Research & Strategies don't agree on some key points -- whom do you believe? (The SRS version of the first incident has all the earmarks of "pedal misapplication," and you could make a plausible argument for the same thing in the second case as well.)

CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'

by gagrice on Wed Dec 02 06:02:24 PST 2009

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”. Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years. Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.” His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place. But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.” http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

Re: . [fintail]

by 210delray on Mon Nov 09 07:58:44 PST 2009

Read these first 2 breathless accounts from self-styled safety expert Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., on his sudden unintended acceleration expose and judge for yourself: Sudden Unintended Acceleration Redux: The Unresolved Issue The Safety Record, Vol. 6, I3, June – July 2009 Copyright © Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA – On February 5, 2007, Bulent and Anne Ezal were headed to lunch at the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach, California. The restaurant is nestled on the edge of a cliff, affording dramatic views of the Pacific Ocean below. The parking lot was downhill of the restaurant, so Ezal rode the brakes of his 2005 Camry as he approached a parking space. He was at a complete stop, when the Camry suddenly accelerated, jumping a small curb, crashing through a fence and over the bluff. The vehicle fell 70 feet to the rocks below, and turned over once, coming to rest in the surf. Anne Ezal died of her injuries in the crash. Bulent Ezal later recovered. Seven months later, Jean Bookout and her friend Barbara Schwarz were exiting Interstate Highway 69 in Oklahoma – also in a 2005 Camry. As she sped down the ramp, Bookout, the driver, realized that she could not stop her car. She pulled the parking brake, leaving a 100-foot skid mark from right rear tire, and a 50-foot skid mark from the left. The Camry, however, continued speeding down the ramp, across the road at the bottom, and finally came to rest with its nose in an embankment. Schwarz died of her injuries; Bookout spent two months recovering from head and back injuries. The full article can be found here. Interesting that Mr. Kane never states his qualifications, only that he started with the Center for Auto Safety in 1991 and then founded his current outfit in 2004. If he were an engineer, scientist, or crash scene investigator with an advanced degree, you think he'd mention it: About us.

Re: Very negative close today [cyclone4]

by circlew on Thu Sep 24 13:27:02 PDT 2009

Charlie, here's a little counter to the GW forecast: When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy. So why was a speech last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence? Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously. Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land. But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100. Here is the full article. Scientists pull an about face on global warming This just goes to show that forecast predictions for this topic on such a global scale can be way off just like the predictions for the stock market. Future factors have a way of making sure we are all on our toes! The thing that scares me most about the current market is that the flaws in the financial system are still in place. Sort of like the C02 in the atmosphere. Regards OW